PayPal

Wednesday, January 4, 2012

“If you, as a servant of your god, must use one hundred thousand
warriors to destroy me, a solitary servant of my God, then you whisper to me,
Muhammed Ahmed, who will be remembered from Khartoum: your god or
mine?”

— General Charles Gordon to the Mahdi in Khartoum (1966). Writer, Robert
Ardey

In April 2009 I noted in a column, “The Irrelevancy
of Conservatism,” which was devoted to examining why conservatives and the
Left hated novelist-philosopher Ayn Rand, that

Rand herself marked the malaise of conservatism in 1962 in her
essay, “Conservatism:
An Obituary.” Identifying why conservatism was finished as a distinct
political ideology and political force, she wrote:

“If the
‘conservatives’ do not stand for capitalism, they stand for and are nothing;
they have no goal, no direction, no political principles, no social ideals, no
intellectual values, no leadership to offer anyone. Yet capitalism is what the
‘conservatives’ dare not advocate or defend. They are paralyzed by the profound
conflict between capitalism and the moral code which dominates our culture:
altruism.”

More importantly, however, the article reveals that
conservatives are afraid that men are realizing that Ayn Rand is fundamentally
relevant to today’s political, moral and economic crises, and that they, the
conservatives, have grown irrelevant. The “transcendent order” of Russell Kirk
(1918-1994), cited by [William R.] Hawkins as a source of moral and
political wisdom, was based “variously on tradition, divine revelation, or
natural law,” but has made way for the “transcendent order” of the brute
collectivism of the state, to which Americans are more and more expected to
defer.

“What should really agitate the public is not the principle of
government intervention to prevent an economic collapse, but how the politicians
have seized the opportunity to spend huge sums on non-emergency, special
interest programs.”

And what is the wisdom of conservatives? It is
the “dean of conservative thinking” Russell Kirk’s, which the reader may sample
here, beginning with:

“….Conservatism is the negation of ideology:
it is a state of mind, a type of character, a way of looking at the civil social
order.”

So it is an anti-ideology, or a set of “sentiments” and
non-ideas, or a “state of mind” which is supposed to animate anyone to try to
dam the advancing, liberty-destroying lava of statism. Hawkins offers his
conservative credentials in this outburst:

“The most alarming sign
that the anarchists are trying to take over the Tea Party movement is the sudden
revival of the amoral and anti-social screeds of the late and unlamented Ayn
Rand. Her name has been bantered around far too often on talk radio and by Fox
News commentators.”

Hawkins should wonder why her name is so
frequently “bantered around,” and not [William F.] Buckley’s or Russell Kirk’s.
Perhaps it is because men are searching for answers and ideas, Rand has had them
for decades, and answers and ideas are not to be found in conservatism. He
should also learn that Rand was neither an anarchist nor a libertarian.

As if to underscore the religious, anti-reason color of conservatism,
Hawkins manages to introduce Original Sin as an ingredient of the financial
crisis:

“True conservatives know the character of Mankind is ’fallen’
and that there is a dark side to human nature to which bankers and fund managers
are just as vulnerable as anyone else. Freedom without responsibility, and
rights without duties, leads to license and wrong-doing.”

I
ask here, almost three years later: What responsibilities? What duties? Hawkins
names none. And why are rights contingent on meeting and fulfilling them? True
conservatives, however, speak for themselves. Only they know how far they have
“fallen” and are more acquainted with the dark side of their “souls” than they
should wish anyone else to be.

Premises have a way of percolating to the
top sooner or later. This is the case with conservatism, specifically religious
conservatism. There is secular conservatism, which is more a species of
pragmatism than it is of principled ideology. Capitalism “works.” A modicum of
freedom “works.” (But not “too much” of either.) And there is religious
conservatism, which is a marriage of pragmatism and faith, otherwise known as
“social conservatism.”

Republican Presidential candidate Rick Santorum
gave us an idea of what it means to be a “social conservative.” The
Blaze offers the low-down on Santorum and explodes the notion that he is
against “big government.”

Today, Santorum tells voters that Medicare is “crushing” the “entire
health care system.” In 2003, Santorum voted for the Medicare drug entitlement
that costs taxpayers more than $60 billion a year and almost $16 trillion in
unfunded liabilities. Santorum voted for the 2005 “bridge to nowhere” bill and
was an earmark enthusiast his entire career.

These days, Santorum
regularly joins a chorus of voices claiming that he would greatly reduce the
role of federal government in local education. When he had a say, he supported
No Child Left Behind and expanded the federal control of school systems. In his
book, in fact, Santorum advocates dictating a certain curriculum to all schools.
The right kind. It’s not the authority of government that irks him, but
rather the content of the material Washington is peddling
today.[Italics mine.]

There is no reason that
candidate Mitt Romney is any different. He’s a social conservative, too. What is
it that social conservatives want to “conserve”? “Traditional” values and big
government as our shepherd and arbiter of those values. Hardly an ideology.

The fundamental obstacle for conservatives to understanding the
pernicious influence of altruism is precisely their altruist premises. They will
not question those premises. To question them is to question the role of
government as a proactive agent for altruism as an apology for freedom and
capitalism. The history of conservatism, especially in the 20th century, bears
out the truth of this contention.

The Left allies itself with Islam
because of shared totalitarian yearnings and ends.

Religious
conservatives, however, oppose Islam basically because it is a rival creed, a
“competing faith.” It is not a turn-the-other-cheek creed. It advocates throwing
stones, lots of stones, in the form of real rocks and passenger jets and
arsonist’s torches. The quotation from Khartoum that precedes this column may be
taken as evidence of that fear, although Charlton Heston’s Gordon, speaking with
conviction to Laurence Olivier as the Mahdi, doesn’t seem particularly fearful.
But after his first fictive meeting with the Mahdi, he confesses to an
aide:

Allah is the only God and Mohammad his prophet (shahada)The Haj (or pilgrimage to
Mecca)Prayer five times a day (sala)The giving of alms (zaka)Ramadan (saum, month-long fasting)

We
are all now familiar with the unnamed “sixth” pillar of Islam: Jihad.

What are the parallel pillars of the Christian faith? The Christian God
is the only God. To some Christians, Allah is an apostate, or Satan himself; to
others, he’s just another “false idol” with peculiar habits. A one-time trip to
Vatican City to hear the Pope give his Easter sermon can be taken as the
Christian Haj. I don’t think other Christian denominations have a similar
obligatory pilgrimage to make. Prayer five times a day isn’t required of
Christians, although I’m certain many pray every day before meals and
participating in sports events and the like. Charity is also a major altruistic
practice in Christianity; in fact, it’s regarded as a key virtue. Lent is the
Christian Ramadan.

Jihad? The only modern equivalents have been
the missionary “outreaches” of the 19th and early 20th centuries, and the modern
versions. These, however, have never entailed violence against pagans or
infidels or native populations. The Spaniards, however, took along priests to
convert South American Indians to Christianity as sanctifying baggage in their
quest for gold, and there were the religious wars of Europe.

The faith of Muslims is based on the works of accomplishing the five
pillars of Islam. Christianity, on the contrary, it based on faith that people
can be freed from their sin[s] by the blood of Christ Jesus.

Most Arabs
are Muslim, but most Muslims are not Arabs. There are millions of followers who
are of Persian and Asian descent. Arabs came from the line of Ishmael (the half
brother of Isaac - father of the Jews). However, descendants of Ishmael were a
nomadic people who intermarried with the Midianites (Judges 8:1, 12,
22, 24) and others, while the Hebrews largely avoided a racial mix. After Islam
violently imposed its doctrines on the Arab world, Muslim men were permitted to
take wives of any faith in order to raise the children in Islam. (Muslim women
were [and still are] obligated to marry only Muslim men.)

Those who
practice the "Five Pillars" of Islam worship a god named Allah, who was the
chief god of the Quraish tribe that controlled Mecca. This god was selected by
Mohammad from among the 300 plus idols honored at the Ka’aba, and Muhammed tried
to modify his moon god to become the God of Abraham. The symbol of this moon
god, Allah, is known as the crescent symbol of Islam. Conversely, the Christian
god revealed Himself to Moses as "Yahweh" (Exodus 3:14-16). In the
Torah and in the Koran, Allah and Yahweh speak in the third person plural, yet
both Judaism and Islam dogmatically proclaim their god to be singular. ("Hear Oh
Israel, the Lord your God is One God" Deut. 6:4) As Christianity
branched off of Judaism, they saw this as additional evidence for the
Trinity.

All varieties of Christianity are founded on saving
one’s soul, or on personal salvation, and the different denominations encourage
or prescribe various degrees of ardor to that end. This does not necessarily
entail, either, going on a homicidal rampage.

Christianity, on the other hand, follows the Lord God of Israel.
Christians believe that God sent His Son to Earth to be the atonement for
sin….[A]ll a person needs to do is accept the forgiveness of Jesus Christ. The
Great Commission to all Christians states, “Go therefore and make disciples of
all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of
the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you;
and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age." Matthew
28:18-20, NKJV.

Personal salvation in Islam, however, is as
bloody-minded as one can imagine.

Muhammed specified that God does not have a son. Because of this,
there is no redemption from sin in Islam. Salvation comes by works which never
carry an assurance of being good enough unless one were to die for Allah as a
suicide bomber or die killing infidels in battle. "If you should die or be
killed in the cause of Allah, His mercy and forgiveness would surely be better
than all they riches they amass. If you should die or be killed, before Him you
shall all be gathered" (Sura 3:157-8). "Those who are slain in the way
of Allah - he will never let their deeds be lost. Soon will he guide them and
improve their condition, and admit them to the Garden, which he has announced
for them" (Sura 47:5).

(A) Allah is distant and unknowable. The God of the Bible is close
and personal. (B) Allah does not love every person; Yahweh [God’s moniker in
the Old Testament] does love every person. [Although he did have his temper
tantrums and could be maliciously capricious, causing plagues of locusts, deaths
of first-borns, turning wives into pillars of salt, the Tower of Babble, and so
on. This is the “tough love” of a psychotic, and differs little from Allah’s
behavior.](C) Allah did not, would not, and will not die for you, nor would
he ever send anyone to do so [Allah did not have a son]. But the God of the
Bible loves you so much He sent His one and only Son to die for you. And He
stands ready to grant you everlasting life if you will receive Him by faith.
[Islam, or “submission,” by any other name.]

Both Christian
conservatives in America and Islamic fundamentalists seem to hate gays, hold
traditionally non-Progressive old school conservative ideologies, demean women,
and are guided in their lifestyle and thinking by their basic doctrinal texts,
i.e., the Bible and Koran. Which, condensed, means adhering to an old time
religion, because it requires nothing more than faith and credulity.

We
can understand the animosity held by Islam for Christianity. The Koran is very
clear about what to do about the “People of the Book” – slay, subjugate, or
convert them if they don’t accept the Koran as God’s final word and Mohammad as
the last and most important prophet. Islam is the youngest of the three major
faiths and much of its doctrine was cadged from Christian and Jewish scripture –
with much tongue-in-cheek inventiveness over the centuries. And Islam does not
so much fear Christianity as hates it and intends to eradicate it.

But
why do especially Christian conservatives hate and fear Islam? When one reads
the comments on the latest Islamic depredation or instance of taqiyya
on sites such as Jihad Watch or Atlas Shrugs, a fair percentage of the readers
feel obligated to bring God into the discussion. Their ardor is virtually
palpable, and any deprecatory remark made by an atheist about Christianity or
God usually provokes outrage and posses form. There is a clinical or
sociological term for such mob behavior: majority syncing
bias.

Because most of Christian doctrine is founded on the life,
homilies, and travails of Jesus Christ, possibly that fear and hatred of Islam
are based on the secondary status that Islam accords Christ, as a mere prophet,
not a “son of God.” Islam claims he was sent to earth by Allah to advance the
cause of Islam. In fact, Islam contends that Christ was never crucified, but
simply “raised up to Him.”

Of course, the Koran treats Jesus as a Prophet of God and confirms
that he had been given the power to perform miracles but it defies the Christian
fundamentals. For example, it refutes the doctrine of Crucifixion, which holds
that God made His Son the Sacrificial Lamb to carry away the people's burdens of
sin:

"...for their saying, We slew the Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, the
Messenger of God. Yet they did not slay him, neither crucified him, only a
likeness of that was shown them... God raised him up to Him..." (IV -
Women: 155)

It means that God did not allow Jesus to suffer
crucifixion, which is the kernel of the Christian faith. He raised him from the
cross, and replaced him with someone, who looked like Jesus. Thus Islam destroys
the very foundation of Christianity. Not only that, Islam subordinates Jesus to
Muhammad. The Hadith No. 287 of Sahih Muslim, volume one, states: "...the son of
Mary will soon descend among you as a just judge. He will break crosses, kill
swine and abolish Jizya..."

That is, Christ will return
to destroy Christianity at Allah’s behest. Presumably Judaism and Jews will have
been exterminated long before Christ reappears. Muslim Brotherhood Legal Expert
Yusuf al Qaradawi earnestly wishes it to happen. He’s President Obama’s pick to
negotiate a “peace” between the U.S. and the Taliban. In 2009, on Al-Jazeera,
he implored:

“Throughout history, Allah has imposed upon the [Jews] people who
would punish them for their corruption. The last punishment was carried out by
Hitler. By means of all the things he did to them–even though they exaggerated
this issue–he managed to put them in their place. This was divine punishment for
them. Allah willing, the next time will be at the hand of the
believers.”

It’s all part of Allah’s plan, you know. Christ,
however, is noted for wanting to be kind to animals. Would the Islamic Christ
approve of halal, and really go about killing swine? And dogs? And
apes?

And Christianity and Islam both have their unique versions of the
“end of days.” The sun will rise in the West, billions of corpses will come back
to life, stars will go out or fall to earth, the Horsehead Nebula will neigh,
the Crab Nebula will sidle up to Orion, almost knocking over the Pillars of
Creation, there will be earthquakes and pestilence, water running up hill, and
everyone queuing up in an infinite line to be judged by one or the other deity
(you can make this stuff up; the Bible,
the Koran, the Torah, and other religious documents prove it). St. Peter and God
are on one side of this vast celestial arena, the Angel Gabriel and Allah on the
other, ready with their naughty-nice lists. Satan and his legions of minions are
waiting and fuming (literally, they’re from Hades) outside the arena, impatient
to collect kindling for the hellfire as Allah or God casts souls into
it.

What a premise for an opera bouffe!

There are no
serious or fundamental conflicts between men of reason. Reason is their guide.
If there are conflicts or differences between them, the most consistent man will
be proven right. Knowable reality will govern the outcome. But conflicts between
mere beliefs – beliefs without evidence of what is believed, beliefs based on
the unknowable, beliefs based on the whim or emotion that “I just want it to be
so” – have led and will continue to lead to horrific warfare in which force
determines the victor and the outcome without really settling the question of
whose God was greater.

God, after all, has always been on the side of
enemy combatants.

Islam is not only a major rival religion to
Christianity, but it also has an aura of greater potency which Christian
conservatives must envy. It sanctions violence and deceit as Christianity does
not, and flouts practically all of the Ten Commandments. Violence and deceit are
great time-savers when one is trying to collect souls and extort jizya
from the greatest number for the greater God in the shortest time. Thus, failing
persuasion or dawa, Islam can just barge into societies and cultures
and nations with sword and club and impose its will, committing murder, coveting
and taking wives and property, lying from ear to ear, cursing, taking the name
of the other guy’s God in vain, sparing those who recognize Allah, and so on.

Of course, in Islam, everything a person does is “written,” predestined
to happen by Allah. So the average Muslim is but an automaton. He’s only doing
what Allah intended him to do. Still, if he slays unbelievers and other infidels
and is killed “in action,” as a “martyr,” he will be guaranteed Paradise. So,
Islamic justice is hard to reconcile with reason. One may as well pat one’s
coffee-maker on the head for, well, making coffee, and tie a bright red ribbon
around it.

But then Christian ethics is little better. Without going into
the issue of the contradictory attributes of omniscience and omnipotence – some
Christian doctrines allege that God also knew everything that one will do eons
before one’s Stone Age great-great-grandparents were conceived – one encounters
the minimal role of volition as the key to one’s salvation. It also renders the
deed-doer selfless, as well, because no good deed is supposed to be performed
with the expectation of reward – not even personal, “spiritual” satisfaction –
but only for its own sake as a Kantian maxim. Instead of performing the deed in
the name of Allah, it is done in the name of the deed. The least quantum of
self-interest in performing a good deed leaves the deed tainted with selfishness
or with greed for absolution or a place in Heaven.

Of course, this puts
the receiver or beneficiary of a good deed in a moral quandary. It is his
happiness and well-being that is supposed to be one’s motive. But shouldn’t the
same maxim apply to the beneficiary? If his life is saved by a selfless
benefactor, how can he not feel selfishly grateful? Ideally, he should
feel just as selflessly disinterested in the preservation of his life as the
benefactor was supposed to have been in having saved it.

The consistent
altruist would be dead from a brief career of selfless service to others. And
the consistent beneficiary would be dead from refusal to accept any alms, for
they would only make him happy.

So, “social conservatives” find a
comfortable medium between altruism and staying alive. The policy explains their
practiced compartmentalization of Christian morality, their hypocrisies and
inconsistencies, and their politics.

“Ay, there’s the rub,” mused Hamlet.
Christians consider it nobler to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous
illogic rather than acknowledge it.

Logical conundrums, however, do not
weigh upon the minds of devout Muslims. Islam does not paint itself into such
ethical corners. It is not concerned with contradictions, moral absurdities, or
syllogistic traps. It is brutally frank in its means and ends. Convert or die,
or cough up the protection money. Nice cheek, infidel Christian. Can you turn
the other one? Thanks for tolerating me. Now, get out of my way.

Perhaps
that is why Islam is feared – and envied – by its rival religionists.

Edward Cline, American Novelist

Edward Cline was born in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania in 1946. After graduating from high school (in which he learned nothing of value) and a stint in the Air Force, he pursued his ambition to become a novelist. His first detective novel, First Prize, was published in 1988 by Mysterious Press/Warner Books, and his first suspense novel, Whisper the Guns, was published in 1992 by The Atlantean Press. First Prize was republished in 2009 by Perfect Crime. The Sparrowhawk series of novels set in England and Virginia in the pre-Revolutionary period has garnered critical acclaim (but not yet from the literary establishment) and universal appreciation from the reading public, including parents, teachers, students, scholars, and adult readers who believe that American history has been abandoned or is misrepresented by a government-dominated educational establishment. He is dedicated to Objectivism, Ayn Rand's philosophy of reason in all matters.